One of the big efforts on the left is “fact checking” – for some time they’ve been setting up various groups and sites billed as the ultimate in “fact checking”, that is to say once they publish their lies, propaganda and talking points you’re not allowed to discuss or debate it – the facts are now as reported by them, no matter how ridiculous.

Need an example?

OK let’s start with SNOPES, which actually does a pretty good job as long as there’s no political or ideological issues with the supposed “facts” they are checking. But get this – they actually fact checked whether they really existed and discovered they didn’t.

They then decided to research whether claims that Snopes dot com is a hoax were indeed a hoax themselves. You can see where this is going, right? Yes, it turns out that claims Snopes dot com is a hoax were also determined to be a hoax, untrue.

Unless claims about all of this are also just a hoax, which I’m beginning to suspect. Decide for yourself:

None of this changes the fact that it might not hurt to use SNOPES and other sites, but be aware their “facts” and their claims about what is fact and what isn’t are often tainted by their ideological and political stances.

Going beyond the limited bounds of the above story, but in the same vein, an appointed person serving for life is a recipe for disaster. We see this reflected in court decisions ranging from that where a gay judge decided to disenfranchise a majority of Californians’ votes with his one vote, which assisted in the effort to duplicate this fraud nationwide, to various decisions in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding “gay rights” and also in the orders regarding Trumps “travel ban” executive orders.

Proof modern life really does kill as remote Amazon tribe have healthiest arteries ever studied
A new study estimates that an 80-year-old from the Tsimane has the same vascular age as an American in their mid-fifties

Not so much proof of what they claim.

More like proof that not having modern methods, diet and tools can lead you to a better lifestyle with long term health benefits, at least with respect to arterial health.

Not really all that much like the sonic screwdriver as it only mimics a tiny part of it’s abilities – an ability to do limited analysis, but it’s not able to change or repair things, so I would say the device is more similar to a Star Trek “tricorder”:

Physicists have designed a handheld device inspired by the sonic screwdriver in Doctor Who and the tricorder in Star Trek that will use the power of MRI and mass spectrometry to perform a chemical analysis of objects.

“He’s spent his whole life bulls———. He’s succeeded by bulls———. He has gotten the presidency by bulls———,” Zakaria said, uncensored. “It’s very hard to tell somebody at that point that bulls— doesn’t work, because look at the results, right?”

This story details how we are finally going to implement better border security – which, by the way, has been part of laws passed AT LEAST since Bush 43’s term, if not even earlier than that. So I don’t get why they are acting like it’s all something Trump came up with on his own. It’s something Obama had a responsibility to manage and he chose not to do so.

While critics and supporters alike pore over President Trump’s proposed federal budget to pinpoint programs that will suffer and savings that will benefit taxpayers, President Trump’s vision of the federal budget includes welcome reform at the Environmental Protection Agency. It would slash appropriations for the EPA’s climate programs; instead of global warming, the budget “reorients EPA’s air program to protect the air we breathe.” From this statement, it is safe to infer that President Trump intends to refocus the agency on doing its job as intended by the Congress.

Over the last decade, climate change has become the EPA’s number one priority. Consider the ascendancy of global warming in the agency’s multi-year strategic plans for air quality, which are required by law. In the EPA’s 2001 — 2005 Strategic Plan, “Goal 1” is “Clean Air,” while climate change mitigation was subsumed in “Goal 6: Reduction of Global and Cross-Border Environmental Risks.” However, in the 2006-2010 plan, climate change mitigation is incorporated into a new “Goal 1,” which is titled “Clean Air and Global Climate Change.” And in the 2011-2015 plan, “Goal 1” is changed again to “Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality” — that is, global warming is listed before improving air quality.

A look back shows that the EPA’s shift in focus to climate change accelerated during the Obama administration. In 2014, for example, then-EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told reporters that “all hands on deck” at the agency were working on President Barack Obama’s climate action plan.

There are three major problems with the EPA’s climate tunnel vision over the past few years.

First, the EPA’s climate regulations will not have an impact on the climate, and the agency concedes this. To wit, the Clean Power Plan, which is the crown jewel of the agency’s climate rules, would prevent sea level rise equivalent to the width of three sheets of paper.

Second, the EPA’s increasing pre-occupation with the climate does not gibe with polling data demonstrating that American voters give low priority to climate change, even among environmental issues.

Third, and most important, the EPA’s turn to climate policy conflicts with the agency’s responsibilities as determined by Congress. The statutes that empower the EPA are rife with deadlines that reflect the nuts and bolts of environmental protection. The problem is that the agency is ignoring these statutory duties in order to pursue its narrow climate agenda.

The Democrats engineered and implemented a number of government shutdowns, which they successfully blamed on Republicans.

During each of those shutdowns, there were groups of government workers who were deemed critical to remain working and others who were deemed “nonessential” who were told not to come in to work.

While I am not suggesting every one of those deemed “nonessential” should be cut, it stands to reason many of them should at least be considered in any future reduction of the excessive government labor force or, as an alternative, their positions might be terminated if they’re going to retire soon – that is to say eliminate the position when they vacate it.

So what was wrong with the original, “Immigrants are now canceling their food stamps for fear that Trump will deport them”? Maybe it’s that one word — “illegal” — which just never seems to fit in the confines of a newspaper’s headline or a Democrat’s 140-character tweet.

Better, then, to go with the less accurate headline that simply alleges that illegals are going hungry. How much less accurate is it? The Post admits that “the evidence is still anecdotal — and The Washington Post was unable to speak directly with immigrants who chose to cancel their SNAP benefits.”

Another detail found quite a way down the page seems important: “While none of the SNAP regulations have changed, President Trump’s immigration agenda has raised fears they may change in the future.” Like a Washington Post headline, say.

The UC System includes UC Berkeley, which, despite its decades-old reputation as the birthplace of the student free speech movement nearly burned itself down recently to avoid hearing a speaker, and UC Hastings, which terminated First Amendment rights of association for every student group rather than allow a small group of Christians to have Christian leaders. Is it fair to compel UCLA to be associated with the anti-freedom actions and policies of UC Berkeley and UC Hastings? Maybe not, but it’s consistent.
Until universities snap out of their PC-induced comas, the idea of a “socially conscious” bracket can go warm the bench for a while.

Bow Wow slurs Melania Trump in the nastiest way possible. Three guesses how reporters responded to the message.

Remember Tuffy Gessling, the rodeo clown who generated national news back in 2013?

Gessling donned a President Barack Obama mask, stuck a broomstick where the sun doesn’t shine and invited a bull to come get him.

He claimed he’s been doing similar gags dressed as U.S. presidents for years. That defense wasn’t enough. His Obama routine led to death threats, a lifetime rodeo ban and near universal condemnation.

“I condemn the actions disrespectful to POTUS” — president of the United States — “the other night … We are better than this,” Tweeted Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder of Missouri.

That was then.

Today, the hate directed at President Donald Trump is relentless. Trump’s visage is fair game for comics and entertainers alike. The Trump is Hitler argument isn’t voiced by shadowy conspiracy theorists but mainstream voices. Death threats, which can trigger Secret Service actions, are becoming the norm.

And the mainstream media reporters rarely raise a peep over it. No pearl clutching. No hand wringing. Universal condemnation? Hardly. A few smirks from reporters is all we’ve gotten so far.

So when rapper Snoop Dogg released a video in which he points a gun at a clowned-up President Trump the bit generated headlines. MSM outrage? Nope.

The mainstream press did report, sans outrage, Snoop Dogg’s video escapades. Yet the Bow Wow tweet, which not only targeted Trump but suggested First Lady Melania Trump would become his prostitute, has been mostly ignored by the entertainment press.

I don’t know… looks like people are still celebrating to me… although I don’t see a date associated with this celebration and it’s not anywhere near May 5th right now… but reading into the story this one guy is cancelling HIS PLANS to organize a party, so nothing but HIS PLANS are cancelled. I am betting that, otherwise, Cinco de Mayo will pretty much go on as usual.

One of Philadelphia’s most prominent Latin American events, El Carnaval de Puebla, has been canceled this year because of what one organizer called “the severe conditions affecting the immigrant community.”

The annual parade through South Philadelphia has taken place in late April or early May for the last decade and is the city’s largest Cinco de Mayo celebration. Organizer Edgar Ramirez said as many as 15,000 gather from as far as New England and Chicago.

The simple truth is that the EPA has gathered all the low hanging fruit of “protecting the environment.” We no longer have rivers that catch on fire. The poor air no longer stings your eyes as you drive into LA. Lead is no longer used as a pigment in household paint.

So now, the EPA focuses on issues that provide very small, minute rewards, if any.

They have done their work. Their greatest work is behind them. Close them down.

The arguments for significantly downsizing them and refocusing – and perhaps legislatively redefining their mission – are compelling. I am not sure completely closing them down would be warranted though I’m tempted to agree that should happen so future idiots don’t send them off on nonsense missions like Obama did. Remember also how he tried to turn NASA into a Muslim outreach organization?

NOTE that their complaint is they re-published a rant that a person put out into the public space – they essentially gave that original person a wider audience and they’re using that as an excuse to try to shut down opposing viewpoints.

Several faculty members at Pitzer College recently discussed launching an “investigation” of a student paper for accurately reporting a student’s public comments about “cultural appropriation.”
The paper aroused the professors’ ire by reporting on a campus-wide email sent by an RA defending her decision to graffiti the message, “White girl, take off your hoops!” on a free speech wall.
Despite calling the story “irresponsible slander” in a public Facebook post, the professors later acknowledge that it was factual, musing about how to “protect” such public emails from disclosure in the future.

After The Claremont Independent reported that Latino students at Pitzer College are demanding that white women not wear “hoop earrings,” professors and administrators at the Claremont Colleges took to public Facebook posts to vent their frustrations, proposing free speech limits on campus and an “investigation” to shut down the conservative student journal.

“We have a serious problem with The Claremont Independent media outlet bullying young women of color at the Claremont Colleges and illegally posting their emails exposing them to violence,” Suyapa Portillo, an Assistant Professor of Chicano-Latino Studies at Pitzer College, recently posted to her public Facebook page. “This is dangerous, irresponsible slander and [is] unacceptable. The minute one of our women of color students feels unsafe on campus ALL of our students of color and faculty of color are unsafe. #STOPBullying #TitleIX #ShutItDown #StopHate.”

If you didn’t create the culture as a coping mechanism for marginalisation, take off those hoops[;] if your feminism isn’t intersectional, take off those hoops[;] if you try to wear mi cultura when the creators can no longer afford it, take off those hoops[;] if you are incapable of using a search engine and expect other people to educate you, take off those hoops[;] if you can’t pronounce my name or spell it, take off those hoops.

So rants Ms Alegria Martinez, a member of the Latinx Student Union at Pitzer College, Claremont, California, in a campus-wide email. When not struggling with oppressive punctuation, Ms Martinez spends her time fretting about the fact that she and her peers are “not taken seriously” as the radical titans they so obviously are. According to fellow umbrage-taker Jacquelyn Aguilera, who also emailed the entire campus, “winged eyeliner, lined lips, and big hoop earrings” are “an everyday act of resistance” by the brown and virtuous, “especially here at the Claremont Colleges.”

Where students are forking out $60,000 a year in the hope of being terribly downtrodden. Possibly by the pool.

By the way, this story does illustrate one of my MINOR issues with Trump – that he tends to shoot his mouth off without considering the later impact of his poorly chosen words sometimes. But that’s not my point, so let it go, will you?

Dershowitz: Courts Essentially Saying If Obama Issued Trump Travel Ban, It Would Be Constitutional – because he did, more or less, and it was, at least when he did it…

Alan Dershowitz said on Fox News this morning that because court rulings against President Trump‘s travel ban are bringing up his own past rhetoric, the argument is basically, “If Obama had issued the very same order with the same words it would be constitutional, but if Trump issues it it’s unconstitutional.”

This week a federal judge in Hawaii and a district court judge in Maryland both ruled to block the revised travel ban, with the latter saying in his decision, “The history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban.”

Such statements include President Trump’s initial call during the campaign for a “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on” and Rudy Giuliani saying on Fox a few weeks ago that after Trump announced that call, he asked him for the right way to do that legally.

Dershowitz said this morning that rulings based on campaign rhetoric is “not the way the law is supposed to operate.”

He predicted that the Supreme Court would end up upholding the “major provisions of this ban.”

A terrorist known to French authorities for his extremist views was killed at Paris Orly Airport on Saturday after trying to wrestle a gun away from a soldier.

French media has identified the subject as Ziyed Ben Belgacem. He is also suspected of a carjacking in a northern suburb of Paris that occurred about 90 minutes before the airport attack.

Belgacem was a French citizen with a long criminal record for drugs and armed robbery. But it was his radical views that put him on a special list of about 10,000 extremists that the French police and military had been watching.

As Arab nations, especially the oil-rich ones in Arabia, develop closer ties with Israel (mainly for protection from Iranian threats) it has become possible for Arab journalists and officials to openly (in the media) discuss Israel and why it is a good idea for the Arab states, who have been in a state of war with Israel since the late 1940s, to now openly treat Israel as an ally. The main reason is obvious; Israel is the military superpower in the region, despite containing only two percent of the people in the Middle East. Arabs don’t like dwell on that in public, but thanks to the Internet anyone curious about Israeli military capabilities can find out in private. What Arabs can discuss openly is the Israeli achievements in science and technology. It is no secret that Moslems, despite having a population 85 times larger than Jews, win one Nobel prize for every 33 awarded to Jews. Arab journalists place less emphasis on that and more on the fact that tiny Israel is one of the top creators of new inventions worldwide. Arabs attribute this to more effective educational institutions and policies. Arabs can now admit that their government have not been as pro-science/technology as the Israelis in particular and Jews in general. Some Arab leaders attribute the disparity to Arab engineers and scientists being lured to the West by better pay and fewer restrictions but the basic problem is there are more opportunities for engineers and scientists in the non-Moslem world.

With regards to the bolded part:

Arabs attribute this to more effective educational institutions and policies.

I attribute THAT to the fact Israel doesn’t focus on teaching it’s kids to hate and to blow themselves up – they concentrate on important things instead.

The New York Times ran the headline What Happens When You Fight a ‘Deep State’ that Doesn’t Exist? America doesn’t really have a powerful deep state, and to claim that it does ‘presents apolitical civil servants as partisan agents’. That’s their claim, summed up.

Give me a break. “Apolitical civil servants”?

A deep state absolutely exists. Some call it “administrative state” or “regulatory state.” These are the people who crush innovation and freedom by issuing hundreds of new rules. Regulators, if they don’t pass new rules, think they’re not doing their jobs.

Even “anti-regulator” President George W. Bush hired 90,000 new regulators. Calling them “nonpartisan” doesn’t make them harmless—it just means we put up with them through multiple administrations.

Even if you exclude the military and post office, more than 20 million Americans work for the government. Because of civil service rules, it’s almost impossible to fire them.

The Times calls these 20 million people “apolitical”. Please. Most are just as partisan as you or I. Maybe more so, as leaks and signs of bureaucratic resistance to presidential edicts demonstrate.

And their union played a HUGE role in getting Obama into office then getting him re-elected.

Outside of court on Friday, Stockman said the amount in dispute is $15,000 – not the $350,000 described in court. He did not explain the higher dollar amount.
He said he has been investigated by at least three grand juries over the past three years after he tried to have Lois Lerner of the IRS arrested for contempt of congress in July 2014.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a nonprofit group that wanted to sue Lerner and other individual IRS officials for allegedly harassing tea party groups that applied for tax-exempt status with burdensome scrutiny in 2014.
On Friday, Stockman blasted the FBI and other federal officials for holding him without access to insulin. He said he is “extremely diabetic” and takes several injections a day.
“As a joke they gave me doughnuts for breakfast and wouldn’t give me my insulin,” he said.

Every state has a “Department of Environmental Quality” or something similar, just as every state has a Board of Education. Federal offices overseeing the environment or education are redundant and are simply ways for the feds to continue to exert power over the states.

As to NASA…..the truth is that we, today, have no manned space program. We have no viable plans on returning to either the moon or to mars. They are an agency without a mission.

This is what is known as the Salena Zito rule: Trump’s supporters take him “seriously, but not literally,” whereas those who don’t support him tend to take him “literally, but not seriously.”

This might go some distance to helping the two sides, as represented here, calm down and stop sniping at each other.

Those of you who took him seriously might want to reconsider since there are times he’s not all that serious sometimes, so you might not be so serious either, and those who take him too literally need to realize basically the same thing – he did not literally mean every poorly chosen word he ever said, seriously!

While the Democrats have abandoned the counterfactual claim that the Russians interfered with the election to help President Trump into office, Trump’s claim that U.S. officials surveilled him still has legs.

Nonetheless, there may be reason to take the gist of Trump’s tweet seriously. At least this is the upshot of the latest turn in the story. On Wednesday Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence panel, and that body’s ranking Democrat, Adam Schiff announced they were seeking information on how the identities of American citizens picked up in eavesdropping on foreign targets were unmasked in more widely disseminated intelligence reports.
This is important because of the case of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser. He resigned after the Washington Post reported on his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergei Kislyak, that took place after Trump’s victory but before his swearing in. At the time, the story was about how Flynn had not come clean about an element of those conversations, touching on sanctions just imposed on Russia.
But another big part of that story is how the intercepted communications of an incoming national security adviser found its way into the newspaper. Earlier this month, Obama’s last director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said there were no Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants that he knew about targeting Trump or his campaign. This surely means that Flynn was caught on a wiretap of the Russian ambassador. Normally, the names of Americans “incidentally collected,” to use the intelligence community’s phrase, are redacted from reports that are sent out to senior government officials. Was Flynn’s name redacted in this case? If not, were summaries or transcripts of his conversation widely distributed within the government? Which would have made it easier to leak.
That’s what Nunes and Schiff want to know. In a March 15 letter to the heads of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency, they asked for the total number of times a U.S. person’s identity was unmasked between June 2016 and January 2017. They also want to know the names of any U.S. persons unmasked in incidental collection who were affiliated or part of the Trump or Hillary Clinton campaigns in this same period, and who inside the executive branch asked for these names to be unmasked.
In Flynn’s case, there may be sound reasons for why his name was not redacted from intelligence reports. Adam Klein, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told me Wednesday that it’s plausible to find a foreign intelligence justification for unmasking the identity of someone like Flynn. “That in and of itself is not necessarily improper,” he said. “But we should remember what is relevant for foreign intelligence purposes is in the eye of the beholder. Something that might seem innocent on its face, might appear more nefarious from the perspective of someone who views the incoming team’s policies with skepticism.”

The U.S. shale cowboys are back on their horses and leading a strong recovery in the oil patch that is not expected to falter even as WTI prices dropped last week below $50 per barrel for the first time in more than two months.

With lessons learned from the oil price crash and budgets streamlined and focused on the most prolific shale plays, U.S. drillers are giving OPEC a hard time by raising output and hedging future production. Meanwhile, the cartel members are trying to cut supply and fix the price of oil at such a range that would allow them to reap higher oil revenues, but not allow the shale patch to recover too much too fast.

Two and a half months into the supply-cut deal, it looks like OPEC is losing the campaign to prop up oil prices. The drop in prices that began last week saw them retreating to almost exactly the same level as on November 30 – just below $52/barrel for Brent – when the OPEC deal was announced, the International Energy Agency said in its monthly report on Wednesday.

FOR YEARS liberals pushed a false theory called “peak oil”, well after the supposed year 2000 time frame that the world supply of oil was supposed to start drying up, or whatnot. I never bothered much with that theory but the current version of it claims a victory because, as they say, “There are no more places where you can get cheap oil easily”. That’s only true because Democrats have ensured there are significant limits on both exploration and exploitation in the U.S. We could have been energy independent from the start were it not for them.

Despite the popular link between The Red Baron (Richthofen) and the Fokker Dr. I (triplane), only 19 of his 80 kills were made in this type of aircraft. It was his Albatros D.III Serial No. 789/16 that was first painted bright red, in late January 1917, and in which he first earned his name and reputation. At the time of his death Richthofen was backing the development of the Fokker D.VII biplane to replace the Dr. I.

The plane above is apparently the Albatros biplane mentioned, not a triplane.

In fact any college program that involves getting people angry about reality, that involves grooming “community organizers”, should really be abolished.

Intellectually, women’s studies has always been a terrible embarrassment. That is one reason its advocates are so truculent: like the Wizard of Oz, they must work overtime to keep up the illusion that their subject even exists. Comparing what goes on in the name of women’s studies to genuine scholarship is like comparing the “space program” said to have been undertaken by a small African country to compete with America’s Apollo missions: there were plenty of rockets, but, being made of wood, they didn’t get very far.

This surprises me because it is true that economic growth typically would see a corresponding increase in carbon dioxide emissions. Then again, these are guesses, not actual accurate measurements.

Global emissions from the energy sector stood at 32.1 gigatonnes last year, the same as the previous two years, while the global economy grew 3.1%, according to estimates from the IEA. Carbon dioxide emissions declined in the United States and China, the world’s two-largest energy users and emitters, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world.

The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%. The decline was driven by a surge in shale gas supplies and more attractive renewable power that displaced coal. Emissions in the United States last year were at their lowest level since 1992, a period during which the economy grew by 80%.

No sooner had the exit polls for the Dutch election been published than the Twitterati and opinion-formers were hailing the resuscitation of pre-Brexit ‘normalcy’. ‘Global populist surge halted’, claimed one report. This ‘Dutch snub’ could be the beginning of the end for the ‘far right’, said another. Dutch PM Mark Rutte, leader of the centre-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) that won most seats, says Dutch people have said ‘whoa’ to Brexit and Trump, to ‘the wrong kind of populism’. Watch out, you tens of millions of American and British voters: your allegedly nasty politics is heading for defeat by the Dutch and other people nicer than you.
There are two delusions here. The first is that Wilders is the same as Brexit. That there’s a continuum of populism, starting with Brexit and running through Trump, Le Pen and Wilders: an indistinguishable blob of ‘far right’ sentiment that clings like a tumour to Europe. This continuum of populism is pure invention, a construct of increasingly tetchy anti-populists in the media. These people either lack the nuance to understand that the growing opposition to the old politics takes different forms around the world, or are keen to tar every new political sentiment with the same brush of ‘FASCISM!’ in order to make their task of demonising it, and avoiding looking at what’s behind it, that bit easier.

“In some cases,” Murray wrote later, “I can only describe their eyes as crazed and their expressions as snarls. Melodramatic, I know. But that’s what they looked like.”
When it became clear that Murray would be unable to speak as planned, the college administration moved him to a room elsewhere in the facility where his conversation with political scientist Allison Stanger was broadcast online. The mob followed, shouting, pulling fire alarms, and banging on the door. “The din never stopped,” Murray wrote. After the conversation was over, Murray, Stanger, and Middlebury’s vice president for communications, Bill Burger, attempted to leave the building.

The mob was waiting. Two security guards escorted the three of them through the pulsating crowd with “Allison and Bill each holding one of my elbows, the three of us plowing ahead, the security guards clearing our way, and lots of pushing and shoving from all sides.” Murray is 74 years old. He was afraid he might fall to the ground. At one point an assailant grabbed Professor Stanger’s hair. She had to wear a neck brace to recover from the injury.

Eventually the party reached its car. The mob surrounded it, “banging on the sides and the windows and rocking the car, climbing onto the hood.” They escaped and drove to a dinner for students and invited guests. But the meal was interrupted and its location moved when Burger discovered that the protesters had learned of Murray’s whereabouts.

What happened to Charles Murray at Middlebury was an affront to academic freedom, democratic norms, freedom of speech, and basic manners. The mob action was, in a word, fascistic—extrajudicial, intolerant, irrational, violent, rooted in a politics of identity. Such incidents on university campuses have become a microcosm of disturbing trends in American society at large. All the vectors of our culture are fissiparous. “In the mid-1990s,” Murray wrote, “I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, ‘Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say.’” Now the intellectually curious are afraid to speak up. Unwelcome guests are run out of town.

And the coverage of all this has been terrible.

So once again while they call Trump and his supporters the NAZIs, we see the Democrats acting like NAZIs.

It’s annoying when they leave out the word “anthropogenic” because that changes the argument. 100% of scientists SHOULD (and probably do) agree “climate change” is real, but that’s not the issue. It’s whether humans are a primary deciding factor causing the direction, magnitude and speed of climate change that is the issue.

The answer to that is no.

Many other things they say are half true.

Yes, most if not all scientists agree climate change itself is real, as I said. There is no similar agreement that humans are a main driver.

Yes, most if not all scientists agree the world will change. There is no similar agreement that the change will be catastrophic or even all that bad – in fact evidence to date suggests exactly the opposite. A warmer world is a better world, full of more life, better life.

we are not yet as warm as The Roman Warm Period
we are not yet as warm as The Medieval Warm Period
we are not yet as warm as three of the last five interglacials

not one climate model can reliably predict the past [look up the term]
the supposed predicted rise in global temperature attributed to Man is less than the error spread in the input data
CO2 is one of the smallest of the so-called greenhouse gases, water vapor is the largest
none of the climate models takes solar variability into account at it’s full influence
none of the climate models takes oceanic oscillations into account (AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc.)
none of the climate models takes orbital preterbations into account
none of the climate models takes planetary oscillations into account (one of which caused the Sahara to turn into desert some 8,000 years ago)
none of the models takes cosmic (gamma) ray influence on cloud formation
40+% of all published temperature data is fake (i.e., “estimated”)

I do not disagree with any of your statements and some of them I know to be basically correct. In fact some of them I’ve mentioned to those who worship Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism and their response is generally to ignore me, respond with a juvenile “nuh-UHHH!” or change the subject.

I might suggest you also mention that there is evidence that temperature data used to justify claims of warming is proven to have been fraudulently adjusted. Not just “estimated”, which does not mean it’s fake, just admittedly uncertain, but rather FRAUDULENTLY ADJUSTED, which is more equivalent to “FAKE” because it is deliberately made to NOT match reality instead of just known to not absolutely accurately define it.

the posturing sheeple are just weaklings looking for approval from anybody in order to justify their inconsequential lives. Therefore they latch onto any cause that is reputed to be holy, like ‘save the whales’, ‘stop the Satanic Gases’, fracking, the ozone hole, etc., etc.

Once they have joined any one or more of these causes they can then parade their virtue for all to see. More obvious signs are buying a Toyota Pious and putting Obama stickers and Greenpeace stickers on it. “Look at me! I’m cool!”

true Bodhi, very true. If you subtract the actual temperatures from the “adjusted” temperatures you get a curve that just coincidentally follows the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

However, the estimated scam is just as bad. They sideline temperatures from the boonies and keep the UHIE temperatures. Then they “estimate” the boonie temperatures by averaging to UHIE temperatures. Oh shock and surprise, the general temperature average has now gone up.

They also completely fake large area temperature sets. Look at south central Africa. There hasn’t been any official measuring sites there at all. However you will see reported temperatures showing a massive hot spot there. Pure fakery.

please don’t get me wrong. There are any number of people buying hybrid cars for the mileage and who are not posturing putzes.
————————-
One thing you should know though – two separate university studies (at left oriented schools) both came up with the empirical fact that the Prius pollutes more per mile than a Hummer based on total pollution to create, drive, maintain, and dump/recycle the vehicle, over the lifetime of the vehicle.
————————–
Also the Corolla with the four cylinder engine and stick shift gets nearly the same mileage, has a significantly lower total pollution, and a lower cost of maintenance, and costs a lot less. Hybrid systems are known for needing major maintenance by 100,000 miles (usually related to the batteries) while Toyota’s four banger goes easily 180,000 without any major failures or rebuilds.

I didn’t take it the wrong way and yes, I had heard that even the process of getting and processing the raw materials to make a Prius pollutes, so I kinda snickered when I saw so many people buying them then claiming their farts smelled good as a result.